UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

Merlebird wrote:

Azazaaz wrote:I just hope I won't have to send it to TwoPiece, he has difficult tastes, he'll just throw everthing I could send him in the fire and yell at me

Daaaaamn, 2pc, that's cold. Why you gotta be like that?

Damn, my reputation is impressive.

sinjin7 wrote: the excellence of the prizes have led to a few people to game their vote in hopes of winning an awesome prize as opposed to expressing their true preferences.

I think this issue is easily resolved by giving prizes out randomly to voters as opposed to which voter was most "correct". I believe this was dont last year as well. It allows people to vote for what they think is best or want to support without hurting their chances of getting a nice reward for voting.

on the note of prizes I would also like to offer a prize, probably a mixed brick of decks various duplicates I have gotten over the years, some from "seconds" sales and such. Anyway ill have to see what I have before being more specific.

misterharmanko wrote:5) I also propose that each voter is limited to how many categories they can vote in for a particular deck. Say the limit was 3 Categories, then Voters would have to choose other decks for the remaining categories.

I think this could be a very valid change to the format. Problem is, I'm not sure how it could be enforced other than those who are moderating the contest spending even more man-hours than they will already scrutinizing every entrant's votes.

Being very new to this community and card collecting, I like the suggestion of being able to shrink the list of eligible decks down somehow to have a final, smaller pool to be voted on. There are an overwhelming amount of decks to look through. Many are amazing and voting for the best is going to be hard, but I think we all know there are also a certain amount of decks out there that just aren't contenders in any way shape or form.

I have gleaned a lot of information from these forums over my short time here, however, if the prizes are awarded based on a fantasy football type point system, I feel I have little shot of winning. Even if I wanted to game the system, I simply don't have enough knowledge of names and decks to compete in a system designed for getting points based on picking the final winners of the categories.

Even if there were a couple grand prize type rewards using said system, I think the rest being given in a raffle format would be great.

Perhaps, using the point system in which there are 3 tiers. Depending on which tier you finish in, you get 1, 2 or 3 tickets for the raffle increasing your chances to be pulled for a prize. This would still give every participant a puncher's chance of winning something.

Overall, I think this would also give the freedom to choose what you really like and not feel like you would be missing out for not going with what you think is going to win.

Sent from my Galaxy 8 using Tapatalk

STLBluesNut wrote:Being very new to this community and card collecting, I like the suggestion of being able to shrink the list of eligible decks down somehow to have a final, smaller pool to be voted on. There are an overwhelming amount of decks to look through. Many are amazing and voting for the best is going to be hard, but I think we all know there are also a certain amount of decks out there that just aren't contenders in any way shape or form.

I have gleaned a lot of information from these forums over my short time here, however, if the prizes are awarded based on a fantasy football type point system, I feel I have little shot of winning. Even if I wanted to game the system, I simply don't have enough knowledge of names and decks to compete in a system designed for getting points based on picking the final winners of the categories.

Even if there were a couple grand prize type rewards using said system, I think the rest being given in a raffle format would be great.

Perhaps, using the point system in which there are 3 tiers. Depending on which tier you finish in, you get 1, 2 or 3 tickets for the raffle increasing your chances to be pulled for a prize. This would still give every participant a puncher's chance of winning something.

Overall, I think this would also give the freedom to choose what you really like and not feel like you would be missing out for not going with what you think is going to win.

Sent from my Galaxy 8 using Tapatalk

I agree with these notions. A nomination process like previously mentioned could be a good way to achieve the highlighted part. This is what stopped me from voting last year, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case for many others.

Having a narrower list of nominations might even allow for the creation of a survey monkey or something of the like to streamline both voting and tallying the vote which would make it much more likely for people to actually vote. It does however skew the results to only consider the decks that are preferred by those vocal and active enough to actually nominate decks. Although I guess as it is now those may be the only ones voting anyway.

The randomization of prizes is what led to me getting a nice prize last year. I think it's a great idea to keep it that way. Some people also declined to receive prizes and I think, if any, there are VERY FEW people who would vote just to get some free decks.

TwoPiece wrote:The randomization of prizes is what led to me getting a nice prize last year. I think it's a great idea to keep it that way.

I also got a nice prize out of the raffle last year so I am likewise in favor of keeping it

No best reviewer category?

There's already an award for that.

It's called YouTube analytics.

TheGentlemanWake wrote:No best reviewer category?

Reviewers suck!

TwoPiece wrote:

TheGentlemanWake wrote:No best reviewer category?

Reviewers suck!

Doesn't this review of reviewers make you a reviewer?

aznh wrote: Edit: Removed deleted content.

Mods:

I'd like to nominate this user for being banned, considering that every time they post, all they do is harass me and promote name-calling. I don't think I've ever seen a contributing post to any thread from this person.

Please take this consideration seriously.

aznh,



like, seriously dude...? was that reeeaaally necessary? I mean comm'on, you've gotta be better than that.

Besides, rather than name-calling, learn to settle your differences with others on the dodgeball court at recess instead like all grown adults do

I'm sorry I didn't participate last year, but I'd like to offer a mixed brick for a prize.

I am also going to donate a mixed brick. I'll probably decide on, and post the contents, sometime this weekend.

This is going to be long but I want to try and offer my opinions on how to address most concerns here. From what I can see the main issues are:
1. Voting Categories
2. Voting Rules
3. Member Participation
4. Accurate Deck Release List
5. Prize Distribution

1. Voting Categories
I think the only thing we can all agree on here is we want to keep this simple. Rather than offering what I think would be the best categories to vote on I suggest we narrow it down to undisputed categories (Best Backs, Best Overall, etc.) and disputed categories. Then I'll create a poll to have users officially vote and go from there. I'll work out the deets with the other mods and keep you posted.
2. Voting Rules
Not a year goes by where this doesn't get brought up and not a year goes by where this changes. Say for a few people here and there anyone who votes solely to try and "win" never does. Alan mentioned early on in this thread that if we are to change categories to only change a few per year so it doesn't get confusing. In the same spirit I elect to only change the rules in a minor way (if at all) to prevent confusion. Here are the rules from last year. Aside from the obvious date changes, what would people like to see changed?
3. Member Participation
It's a conundrum. On the one hand we want to encourage people to join and actively participate on this forum and promote "the brand." But on the other hand we don't want to see people ignore this forum for 11 months and come back just to participate in this contest in hopes of winning a prize. There are a few ways to handle this but I think the best way is to limit voting to users that have, say 50 or 100 posts or more. It would be even better to say 50 or 100 posts within the last year or so but that would take a lot of work to quantify. Thoughts?
As far as getting members to participate, I personally don't think there's much that can be done about that suffice to say that if we work the kinks out and streamline it for years to come it might be less daunting and overwhelming. Which leads me to issue four...
4. Accurate Deck Release List
There are a few sources out there (Thanks to guru, Nate/P52, etc.) but if you ask me none were better than PrincessTrouble's list on TPC. It wasn't just a list of decks, it contained a few simple pictures and links to product or KS pages and the only things you had to click on where the next page indicators. A few minutes of mindless scrolling and you had a basic idea. Unfortunately that list wasn't kept up with and discontinued last year (at no fault to PT! That looked like it took much more work than I'd ever want to do). Personally I couldn't have voted without that resource so I wonder how we can generate a new list like that?
Narrowing down a list of 4-5 decks per category is a great idea; just like the Oscars. The problem that presents is it essentially adds another stage of voting and isn't the whole point trying to make this easier? We have an embarrassment of riches here- there are so many more decks released every year that it becomes harder and harder to go though a list and narrow them down. But I'd hate to see a deck get omitted for any reason even if it were only to get one vote. After all this whole contest is based on recognition.
5. Prize Distribution
Years ago when this contest was first run I thought it was very silly to be rewarded for having a majority opinion. And let's face it, that's basically what the prizes are for- the more similar your votes are to everyone else, the better chance you have of winning a prize. And the prizes have got increasingly phenomenal which is part of the reason I think this has been discussed more and more the past few years. But here's what I eventually ended up thinking: this contest does not need to contain prizes at all. But it does, thanks to the generosity of collectors and artists alike. Are the prizes incentives for voting? They shouldn't be- I personally enjoy seeing the contest to find out what all these very opinionated UC members decide to be the best decks (and best aspects of decks).
But maybe the prizes are incentives for voting nowadays. Either way I think the current rules of "guessing right" are random enough. In my opinion, adding a lottery-type prize distribution system will further confuse matters by adding yet another step to this already far-too-long process. Like I said before I can't think of a time when the voting system has been abused, at least to a degree where it was blatantly obvious and caused someone to get shafted. And if my idea in issue number three to restrict voting to users with a minimum number of posts is implemented then that will already rule out most lurkers.

TL;DR
I want to work out a poll here to vote on the categories; stay tuned.
I don't think the rules need to be changed but if they are the changes should be minor.
Let's limit the voting to members that have a minimum amount of posts.
Should we limit the amount of decks that should be voted on for each category? If so, how? If not, how can we pool together a list of 2018 decks and who wants to help? (I'll volunteer as best I can)
Let's keep the prize distribution the same as it's always been. Not to mention there seems to be enough donations to cover almost every voter. Hell, I think there were more prizes than voters last year.

vasta41 wrote:This is going to be long but I want to try and offer my opinions on how to address most concerns here. From what I can see the main issues are:
1. Voting Categories
2. Voting Rules
3. Member Participation
4. Accurate Deck Release List
5. Prize Distribution

...

TL;DR
I want to work out a poll here to vote on the categories; stay tuned.
I don't think the rules need to be changed but if they are the changes should be minor.
Let's limit the voting to members that have a minimum amount of posts.
Should we limit the amount of decks that should be voted on for each category? If so, how? If not, how can we pool together a list of 2018 decks and who wants to help? (I'll volunteer as best I can)
Let's keep the prize distribution the same as it's always been. Not to mention there seems to be enough donations to cover almost every voter. Hell, I think there were more prizes than voters last year.

1. I like it. I think we need a minimum of 10 categories.
2. I agree. I don't think the voting rules need to be changed.
3. I agree, again. Minimum 100 posts IMO. There are people that are only here to harass, or resell decks, and I think 100 posts is a fair threshold.
4. I don't think we should limit number of categories that a deck can be voted on.
5. I think the prize randomization should stay. And, yes, there were more prizes than voters for last year.

FYI I made this thread a sticky so it doesn't get lost. Thanks to sinjin for getting the ball rolling on this! Let's try to make this the best voting year yet.

TwoPiece wrote: 1. I like it. I think we need a minimum of 10 categories.
2. I agree. I don't think the voting rules need to be changed.
3. I agree, again. Minimum 100 posts IMO. There are people that are only here to harass, or resell decks, and I think 100 posts is a fair threshold.
4. I don't think we should limit number of categories that a deck can be voted on.
5. I think the prize randomization should stay. And, yes, there were more prizes than voters for last year.

I like the direction this is heading. The only thing that I, personally, would take issue with is the number of posts. This makes my 26th post on the forums. I’ve been in and out of the forum for a year or two, mostly lurking and learning, and only recently have I started attempting to contribute in any shape, form, or fashion. Is this my fault? Yes; I absolutely could have come to the table sooner. Do I feel putting a minimum (or at least such a high minimum) post requirement would be somewhat of a slap in the face? Probably. I’m definitely not here trying to harass or resell or otherwise degrade this wonderful hobby. I’m just slowly getting my feet wet, learning from the experience that I find on UC, and trying to figure out how to best disseminate my limited fiscal resources to get maximum enjoyment from collecting playing cards. I can’t help that I’m not as opinionated as TwoPiece yet.

I’ve already voiced my concerns of feeling overwhelmed last year, which appear to be the same as some others and appear to be duly noted. That’s what makes this forum so great. I think it is important that wherever the line is drawn, it is done so only after the most careful consideration. Just my two cents.

vasta41 wrote:4. Accurate Deck Release List
There are a few sources out there (Thanks to guru, Nate/P52, etc.) but if you ask me none were better than PrincessTrouble's list on TPC. It wasn't just a list of decks, it contained a few simple pictures and links to product or KS pages and the only things you had to click on where the next page indicators. A few minutes of mindless scrolling and you had a basic idea. Unfortunately that list wasn't kept up with and discontinued last year (at no fault to PT! That looked like it took much more work than I'd ever want to do). Personally I couldn't have voted without that resource so I wonder how we can generate a new list like that?
Narrowing down a list of 4-5 decks per category is a great idea; just like the Oscars. The problem that presents is it essentially adds another stage of voting and isn't the whole point trying to make this easier? We have an embarrassment of riches here- there are so many more decks released every year that it becomes harder and harder to go though a list and narrow them down. But I'd hate to see a deck get omitted for any reason even if it were only to get one vote. After all this whole contest is based on recognition.

This is by far the most time-consuming issue/task and, while I very much agree with a lot of what you expressed, I think you have to be a bit more patient in regards to each step of the process in getting this all in order.

As I had stated in a post before, I think the 'Accurate Deck List' is far less of an issue than the others as it's kinda already being covered, but again, it takes time.

The past few days in the free time that I do have, I've been working (slowly but surely) on the 'Upcoming Decks of 2018' google doc to go through the incredibly time-consuming process of backtracking those missing decks that were from 2017 KS campaigns but released in 2018 and, in the 2-3 days since starting, I've added about 60 decks to the list but still have many many more to go. So, like I said and as you recognize yourself, it's a lot of work that takes a considerable amount of time to go through so many campaigns and dig up that information to ensure an accurate deck list.

Once the list is updated, I personally believe it will be the most comprehensive list thus far as it not only includes the vast majority of KS decks, but also most decks that were released through major online retailers or elsewhere.

I understand that everyone likes to have a thread with pictures rather than just the google doc with links to the decks, but I think you're jumping ahead just a bit; give me more time to finish the "master list" before opening a thread and posting pics and then from there, we can talk about narrowing down the lot to nominated decks for each category.

Remember, one step at a time.

As far as the other issues, those I think we can most certainly spend time trying to resolve now, but be assured, even though it's not instantly available right now, the "Accurate Deck List" is being worked on and will be available as soon as it's finished.

1. Yes, please! If a category cannot get enough voters involved, it has to go. I'm interested in coins and tarots, no one else here seem to care enough to have a category for them. they have to go, plain and simple.

2. Rules are fine as they are.

3. Limiting the voting to members with a minimum of posts isn't a good idea in my opinion. Not because I personally don't have the required number of posts to be part of the UC voting crew, I didn't vote last year, I won't this year if this rule is enforced; maybe 2019 will be the one, I'm in no rush. There are "only" 188 users with 100+ posts if I counted correctly and some of them are inactive, that's not a lot and it even excludes some designers.

If that limit is only set to avoid giving away prizes to lurkers who might not deserve them because they don't help the forum, change the donation system, not the voting one. There was a mention of trying to promote the contest and the forum on other platforms, it can't happen with such a rule. "Hi T11 forum members, we have this contest where we elect the best decks for the year and we give away decks to thank participants but you know what? You can't be a part of our community because we decided to close our doors".

Will I still be able to donate something even if I can't vote?

4. A lot of categories, even undisputed ones like "best backs" didn't even have a 3rd nominee last year. I guess the limit is not necessary considering this.

5. The donation seems to be a core problem really. You have 30 posts? You can't get more than 3 decks in prize value. 60 posts? a half brick in prize value. That could get people to participate more in order to be able to grab the big prizes for the next years. Or make people with less than the amount of required posts pay for postal fees. I don't know.

I am not a huge Tarot fan, but I do have Sunish's Major Arcana deck and I just received USSI's Supra Oracle tarot deck a few weeks ago. I really would have liked Ian Cumpstey's Rare Triumphs tarot deck to get funded, but it fell short of the goal. I do though agree that it is not going to get enough support and should be dropped. Just wanted to put out there that others do collect a few of the tarots. I am loving some of the artwork.

I am really looking forward to next year when the Visconti Modrone Tarot gets finished and delivered.

I think instead of solely basing it off the number of posts, there should also be consideration for how long someone has been a UC member.

We're seeking to increase contest participation, so it doesn't make any sense to restrict it with an arbitrary minimum post requirement. I know of a lot of members who have lurked months, if not years, before taking the plunge and getting more involved. It's not right to punish new members by preventing them from voting, either. Again, one of the primary goals of the contest is to market UC and attract new members into the community, so we should be more welcoming and inclusive instead of exclusive. I would be absolutely opposed to any type of minimum post requirement for voting.

I understand the reasoning for nominating decks in order to pare down the sheer number of decks to vote on, but I think it's self defeating in the long run. As Paul already stated, this only adds an additional layer of work and will alienate people who don't see their favorite decks making the cut. Yes, there are a lot of decks out there, but you should only vote on the decks you're familiar with so there's no point in getting overwhelmed by the volume of possible decks when you only have to focus on the decks you know. Plus, it looks like multiple people are putting in a lot of time and effort in categorizing the massive pool of 2018 decks, so that should help immensely in voter's decision making by utilizing these great resources.

I'm glad preparations for the contest is gaining steam and appreciate all those who are volunteering to make this a great contest. I think it will be useful if a Mod can create a sticky that will list all the fantastic prize donations that have already been pledged as well as the ones to come in the future. The donors can then go in and fill in the specific details and contests of their donations.

sinjin7 wrote:We're seeking to increase contest participation, so it doesn't make any sense to restrict it with an arbitrary minimum post requirement. I know of a lot of members who have lurked months, if not years, before taking the plunge and getting more involved. It's not right to punish new members by preventing them from voting, either. Again, one of the primary goals of the contest is to market UC and attract new members into the community, so we should be more welcoming and inclusive instead of exclusive. I would be absolutely opposed to any type of minimum post requirement for voting.

For the record I only suggested that to address concerns people had about "voting abuse" for lack of a better term. I agree that this contest is now a great reason for people to come check out the forum. But I understand member's concerns with lurkers coming here just to vote, win, and go away. However I also don't want to discourage anyone, new or veteran, from participating. I don't know if I'm for or against my idea but I threw it out there so we could talk about it.

sinjin7 wrote:I'm glad preparations for the contest is gaining steam and appreciate all those who are volunteering to make this a great contest. I think it will be useful if a Mod can create a sticky that will list all the fantastic prize donations that have already been pledged as well as the ones to come in the future. The donors can then go in and fill in the specific details and contests of their donations.

Excellent idea but I'm about to watch the Sox so unless someone does this before I wake up tomorrow it will be done then.

Just wanted to put out there that others do collect a few of the tarots

I wanted to chime in too, that I haven't been around here as much because I've been more focused on collecting tarot and vintage playing card decks than new releases - so we're out there, even if we are quiet!

Your post was a bit confusing, last year prizes were awarded randomly to voters and I think we should keep it that way. Voting for the deck you think will win should never be the "optimal" way to vote, vote for the one you WANT to win or you think deserves to win. The only way we ensure people do that is to not have prizes tied to the votes at all. (besides requiring you do in fact vote in order to be entered).

This really isnt so complicated either, give every voter a number and bust open a random number generator.

sinjin7 wrote:We're seeking to increase contest participation, so it doesn't make any sense to restrict it with an arbitrary minimum post requirement. I know of a lot of members who have lurked months, if not years, before taking the plunge and getting more involved. It's not right to punish new members by preventing them from voting, either. Again, one of the primary goals of the contest is to market UC and attract new members into the community, so we should be more welcoming and inclusive instead of exclusive. I would be absolutely opposed to any type of minimum post requirement for voting.

I understand the reasoning for nominating decks in order to pare down the sheer number of decks to vote on, but I think it's self defeating in the long run. As Paul already stated, this only adds an additional layer of work and will alienate people who don't see their favorite decks making the cut. Yes, there are a lot of decks out there, but you should only vote on the decks you're familiar with so there's no point in getting overwhelmed by the volume of possible decks when you only have to focus on the decks you know. Plus, it looks like multiple people are putting in a lot of time and effort in categorizing the massive pool of 2018 decks, so that should help immensely in voter's decision making by utilizing these great resources.

My 2 cents here from a rookie perspective to the voting:

Agreed with 1st point there. I was a lurker last year before jumping in this year.

However to your second point, what stopped me from voting in 2017 was the sheer size of decks to consider and the categories. It was overwhelming for those of us new to addic... hobby. I would support a nomination process and a paring down of the categories (already put my suggestions earlier). Maybe 2 round voting system. 1st round as a nomination process, 2nd round as the finals.

However to control the voting to serious voters, you gotta nominate in the 1st round to be eligible for the final 2nd round. Prizes only for those who voted in the final 2nd round.

If you want to set a minimum entry level: to be eligible to nominate, you gotta at least have posted in a minimum 2-3 groups beyond the personal selling thread. Or at least introduced yourself or your cards? You must have at least posted once in 2018 beyond the selling.

However that may make it ever more complicated. Not sure how this forum work, but if the data can be downloaded onto an excel sheet, someone with average Excel skills can work it out easier.

To make the 2 round nomination and final round process easier, consider put a google/mailchimp/etc online survey as a link to the nomination process and final voting? Each user can only vote 1 no matter how many login ids you have. (Not sure if there's a way to track.)

Use a masterlist for the deck name and designer to ensure you don't have multiple names for the same deck. That will greatly ease the headache and work of breaking down the nomination process to a final round voting for the top 5/3. Link for the final voting will be sent out via email only to those who nominated.

I'm against a nomination "finals" system. If someone wants the Poop Emoji Deck (made up) to win Best Back Design, then it shouldn't be eliminated from final count. As we know, art is subjective, and it would be a bad idea to impose a Red vs Blue system of rankings.

I know there are a lot of decks out there, which is why I only vote for ones in my collection. It's easy for me to find the ones delivered to me this year. I usually know which one has the best backs, the best courts, and the best pips.